Re: [netmod] 6087bis namespace recommendations

[Robert Wilton <[e-mail]>]

On 17/01/2016 09:52, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 03:38:00PM +0000, Robert Wilton wrote:
>> Since an ID is effectively superseded by any new versions, I think that
>> it is useful if a module defined in an ID has a revision date that
>> matches the published ID, and also a reference back to the ID version
>> that defines it.  At least if someone ends up implementing that module
>> they can check its provenance.  Both of these properties would also be
>> verifiable by idnits.
>>
> Right now, we seem in the "hey lets invent more rules mode" and
> tomorrow I am sure we are again in the "hey the IETF is way to
> complicated to work in" mode.
This was the approach that I followed when posting and updating the 
drafts that I was working on, perhaps mis-understanding the statement 
"The revision statement MUST have a reference substatement. It MUST 
identify the published document that contains the module." for which I 
presumed that the "published document" also includes the version number.


>
> If you have a unique revision date, why is google and the like not
> sufficient to find the matching I-D? Sure, the proposed rule itself
> does not hurt, but an increasingly large collection of rules may start
> to hurt. So please, lets try to find the minimum number of rules where
> we have evidence that they avoid big problems.
I'm also against having too many rules to follow, it starts to make the 
process too laborious.

My assumption is that given the relatively slow pace that standards 
models are being formally standardized that vendors/operators are likely 
to want/need to temporarily ship with pre-standard versions of the 
models.  Hence, in this case I personally feel that the additional 
clarity that is gained by explicitly referencing both date and full 
document name outweighs the slight hassle in updating it when a new 
version of the draft is posted.

Rob

>
> /js
>